A barcode helps in tracking and tracing of origin of drugs, which in turn helps in minimising the chances of genuine drugs being considered spurious, sub-standard or counterfeit.

The Indian government has extended the deadline for affixing barcodes on primary level packaging by pharmaceutical companies till July 2014.

In a notice, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) said, “Earlier the requirement of affixing barcodes on Primary Level packaging was to take effect from 1 July 2013. Now this date has been deferred to 1 July 2014”.

A barcode helps in tracking and tracing of origin of drugs, which in turn helps in minimising the chances of genuine drugs being considered spurious, sub-standard or counterfeit.

The government had asked pharmaceutical companies to build “track-and-trace” capability for their exported medicines using barcode technology at three levels of packaging primary, secondary and tertiary.

Primary level packaging is the first-level product packaging such as the bottle, can, jar, tube, that contains the item sold.

User

While SEBI opposed RIL’s plea saying that it is up to the regulator to decide on acceptance or rejection of a consent application, SAT said it is seeking written submissions from both the parties as it is hearing such a case for the first time

The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) on Monday while adjourning the hearing till 14th June on Reliance Industries’ (RIL) appeal against market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) asked both the parties to make written submissions.

Mukesh Ambani-led RIL had approached SAT after its application to settle the matter through a “consent mechanism” was rejected by SEBI.

RIL has challenged SEBI’s decision to reject its plea and also the changes made by the regulator during 2012 in regulations governing settlement of cases through the consent mechanism, especially those already under consideration.

Under SEBI’s consent mechanism, companies can seek to settle cases with the market regulator after payment of certain charges and disgorgement of any ill-gotten gains.

RIL filed a petition before SAT against SEBI’s rejection of its application for “consent settlement” of a probe into alleged violation of insider trading norms in sale of shares of the company’s erstwhile subsidiary Reliance Petroleum.

In May 2012, SEBI had tightened the norms for settlement through consent framework. As a result, many cases, including those related to insider trading, are not being settled through this mechanism.

On 3 January 2012, SEBI published a list of 149 consent pleas, including 16 from entities related to the RIL group, which it had found unsuitable for settlement through consent process.

These include applications of RIL itself and that of RIL chairman Mukesh Ambani’s close aide Manoj Modi.

User

The Bombay High Court also asked MTNL to pay electricity charges as per the tariff rate applicable for commercial consumers from June 2009 onwards

The Bombay High Court on Monday upheld the decision of BrihanMumbai Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) to categorise telephone exchanges of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam (MTNL) as “commercial consumer” for the purpose of charging tariff.

State-run MTNL had challenged the decision of BEST to change its category from “industrial consumer” to “commercial consumer”.

BEST contended that the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity had recently held that telephone exchanges were liable to be charged on the basis of commercial category (non-residential supply category) and that the arguments that telephone exchanges are “industrial users” was not accepted by the tribunal.

This communication was sent to MTNL but this had not been challenged in the petition, BEST said.

Hearing the petition recently, a bench headed by Chief Justice Mohit Shah refused to grant relief saying they were prima facie satisfied with the arguments of BEST that MTNL was not an “industrial power user” but a commercial consumer.

The court also took into account the submission of BEST that MTNL have been paying electricity charges based on rates applicable to commercial consumers right from 1987 to 2006 and again from June 2009 onwards.

The bench granted a stay against recovery of amount by the power company on the basis of impugned bills for the period January 2007 to May 2009 and for any prior period.

From June 2009 onwards, the court, however, ordered MTNL to pay based on tariff rate applicable for commercial consumers.